Unbiased, Objective, Thorough Coverage...

...of everything the news media thinks we should read.

I don't think that mainstream news media is engaged in a conspiracy to decieve the American public. On the other hand, I do think that the news media have a very definite idea about what is, and is not, fit to print.

I also believe that the American news services remember the status they had, following the JFK assassination and Watergate. (I've written about this before.) What they don't realize is that the Heroic Investigative Reporter isn't a cultural icon any more.

One of the more remarkable, or egregious, examples of this 'all the news we want to print' situation is how the news media handled retired General Sanchez' scathing indictment of the news media. He also criticised the Bush administration.

Sanchez's "nightmare" quote is very familiar by now. So far, I still haven't seen more than fleeting mention of the general's statement that irresponsible reporting has killed U.S. soldiers.

This silence is particularly curious, since General Sanchez singled out four reporters for praise: and two of those were at The New York Times. I would expect a newspaper to be pleased to report that half of the reporters Sanchez cited were on its staff: but The New York Times was as silent as every other traditional news outlet.

Unwilling to print news that doesn't fit an approved pattern? I think so.

(see "Top Newspaper's Journalists Praised: Blackout Imposed on Praise" (October 15, 2007), "'All the News We Want to Print:' Iraq War Reality Check Missed" (October 14, 2007))